Again, it was not a personal attack. I know it sounded that way, but there are plenty of things that I am ignorant of. Maybe I was misinterpreting what you were trying to say but it wasn't making any sense.

Also, of course it would be segregated traffic. Cable company provided telephone service is Voice over IP, but it is segregated from your commodity internet traffic that goes over your home network. It would be completely expected for them to handle video service over IP just like they handle PacketCable provided telephone service. On the other hand, it's also likely that there would be a way for "public" devices such as your Xbox to join those multicast sessions. How they handle that problem would be interesting. It could entirely be a gateway device, like a set top box, that is on both networks, or it could be logic in the modem that passes that traffic into your home LAN.

My perspective was how they'd implement the traffic efficiently given the shared bandwidth nature of cable lines. I'm sure you'll likely take exception to my analogy, but I see the cable network similar to a hub than a switch since everyone receives the same RF. Maybe that's why they call it a cable network "hub".

It was my opinion that IPTV and HSD will be separate silos. If for no other reason but to prevent (screw?) access from non-STB. I made the comment for WRT an IP gateway for a TiVo because of this expectation. Additionally, I don't see cable requiring their customers to re-wire with Ethernet. My expectation is that new CPE will travel with built-in DOCSIS 3.0 modems to access the IPTV service groups. So CPE still receives QAM and require "tuners" for IP traffic now; how does that save any $$$???

I don't see ipads, xboxes and rokus receiving any benefit. In fact the video bit rates pushed to the STB would choke such devices. I kind of doubt video distribution for these devices will change a whole lot from how its delivered today. However, I would like to be surprised.

My perspective was how they'd implement the traffic efficiently given the shared bandwidth nature of cable lines. I'm sure you'll likely take exception to my analogy, but I see the cable network similar to a hub than a switch since everyone receives the same RF. Maybe that's why they call it a cable network "hub".

It was my opinion that IPTV and HSD will be separate silos. If for no other reason but to prevent (screw?) access from non-STB. I made the comment for WRT an IP gateway for a TiVo because of this expectation. Additionally, I don't see cable requiring their customers to re-wire with Ethernet. My expectation is that new CPE will travel with built-in DOCSIS 3.0 modems to access the IPTV service groups. So CPE still receives QAM and require "tuners" for IP traffic now; how does that save any $$$???

I don't see ipads, xboxes and rokus receiving any benefit. In fact the video bit rates pushed to the STB would choke such devices. I kind of doubt video distribution for these devices will change a whole lot from how its delivered today. However, I would like to be surprised.

I think you're missing the forest for the trees.

First off, iPads and Xboxes and Rokus would receive the *exact same bitstream* as the cable company's set top box. I'm not sure how the bitrates "pushed to the STB" would "choke" those third party devices. In an IP world, the set top box provided by the cable company would be indistinguishable from a device such as an Xbox. They're all just apps consuming IP video streams.

And yes, I understand how the HFC networks of MSOs work, and I do understand that it's a shared medium akin to an ethernet hub. However, in multicast that doesn't matter, and is in fact more efficient, since a multicast stream is only placed on the wire once. Then, when a device at your house wants to "subscribe" to that stream, your modem (or gateway or whatever) starts forwarding those packets to wherever they need to go. In an IP multicast world, each TV does not have a dedicated amount of bandwidth usage it is soaking up. This is exactly how U-Verse works, all the multicast streams being requested are sent only ONCE to the DSLAM, and when your set top requests a channel it is then forwarded to your house. Only one copy of ESPN goes to the point of distribution, not a copy for every TV trying to watch it.

And finally, such a world would not require re-wiring with Ethernet. MoCA is more than sufficient for distributing IP-based video. The bitrates aren't going to change (in fact, they'll probably go down since that is a perfect time to switch to MPEG-4 or H.264 encoding). Coax is already used for IP networks every day.

And I think you are confusing a couple of different issues and objectives to switching to IP distribution of video. Of course, there will still be DOCSIS modems/gateways that tune a QAM carrier. The point isn't to get rid of QAM modulation on the cable wire. The point is to combine the video distribution of their app ecosystem with the video distribution of their legacy baseband infrastructure.

Why couldn't the same IP stream destined for a STB be used for a tablet or phone? Or, more importantly, why couldn't it be used for a Roku or Xbox or other retail device running the MSO's app? For the transition to IP, you have to keep in mind they'd probably replace all CPE, so new set tops for everyone. That's why it will be a slow transition, but it's also why you should forget all the other existing problems that exist today.

And putting an IP gateway that converts from QAM to IP totally misses the point. The point is to eliminate the QAM infrastructure. The advantage to moving to IP on the delivery-to-TV side is that you can consolidate that with the infrastructure (encoders, modulators, IP distribution, etc) for the delivery-to-mobile/apps world. The whole point is to NOT have two totally different systems.

The mobile devices couldn't reliably handle a nearly constant stream of multicast data. They need to be on bandwidth-adaptive unicast to work reliably.

I don't see QAM going away. Few companies have even got to MPEG-4, which is easy compared to going IP. IP would require all new STBs, and some sort of transition period after every box supported IP where channels are moved from QAM to IP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JosephB

I'm saying this in as respectful a way as possible, but it's obvious you have little to know knowledge as to how IP networks actually work. U-Verse is 100% IP based. Read up on multicast and you'll figure out how IP video distribution would work without using more bandwidth than QAM based video distribution. As a matter of fact, if the system is build appropriately, it could use drastically less bandwidth.

Well actually, given the same codec, IP running over DOCSIS 3 and SDV would use almost exactly the same amount of bandwidth. Both get 38mbps per channel. If you're claiming huge bandwidth savings of IPTV over QAM256, you're looking at not transmitting channels that aren't in use, which is exactly what SDV already does with QAM256. Now DOCSIS 3.1 could theoretically get quite a bit more capacity, as it's using OFDMA rather than QAM256, which is the same change that is happening going from HSPA+ to LTE on the mobile side... However, we're now really out in dream land. MPEG-4 AVC has been out for 11 years, and few cable companies are using it much, if at all, and that's an easy change from MPEG-2...

Quote:

Originally Posted by telemark

The people on this thread know a lot about a lot of technology but I guess since everyone has TIvo's many were insulated from this migration debacle.

Migration debacle? More like a non-event except for some secondary TVs that people didn't use much anyways. It was easy when Comcast switched over, we got two DTAs, later migrated one TV to a box with WHDVR access, and later returned both DTAs when they started charging $2.50/mo for the DTAs. Now, everything is just digital. No need to even think about analog.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nooneuknow

Cox, in my market, deploys old boxes without cablecards, claiming that the rules don't apply to anything they can re-issue, or refurbish, only new boxes.

What sucks about this, is it's near impossible to get a STB w/HDMI, as those had the cablecards, while the older ones w/o the card have DVI, at best.

For a short time, right after the integration-ban, the cablecard w/HDMI boxes were all they were issuing. Now, I keep hearing "Yeah, those are hard to come by, so this is what you get". I keep asking for a STB, then refuse to accept, when they try to give me the old ones.

I bring this up, when I see the topic come up, and nobody ever says whether this is them breaking the rules, exploiting a loophole, or acceptable. It sure would be nice to know if I'm wasting my time documenting every occasion I'm denied a non-integrated STB.

It sure seems like I am, if there are so many non-integrated (separable cablecard) boxes being scrapped, including the cablecards inside...

Perfectly legal. HDMI and CableCard have nothing to do with each other, however, just by chance it sounds like they ordered a new line of boxes that happened to get both at the same time. I've seen HDMI boxes that don't have CableCards or MPEG-4 decoding capability.

They can continue to use boxes purchased before the integration ban as long as they continue to function. They are required to give you a separate CableCard to work with your TiVo, but they are not required to give you a box with a CableCard in it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwbelcher

Additionally, I don't see cable requiring their customers to re-wire with Ethernet. My expectation is that new CPE will travel with built-in DOCSIS 3.0 modems to access the IPTV service groups. So CPE still receives QAM and require "tuners" for IP traffic now; how does that save any $$$???

I don't see ipads, xboxes and rokus receiving any benefit. In fact the video bit rates pushed to the STB would choke such devices. I kind of doubt video distribution for these devices will change a whole lot from how its delivered today. However, I would like to be surprised.

MoCA. They're already using MoCA for WHDVR functions. AT&T uses HPNA to transmit their IP data to their STBs, DirecTV uses DECA for streaming from the HR34/HR44 to the C31s. AT&T will let you use Ethernet, but it's certainly not recommended or required.

They would likely have a gateway that received IPTV and then transmitted that via MoCA to the boxes. However, the whole IPTV thing makes no sense, as almost none of their existing equipment is IPTV capable.

The bitrates wouldn't choke an iPad per se, as it would likely be something like 6-8mbps MPEG-4, however, it wouldn't be practical for use on consumer devices, as the bandwidth isn't consistent enough, so unicast streams that are bandwidth-adaptive would still need to be used...

The mobile devices couldn't reliably handle a nearly constant stream of multicast data. They need to be on bandwidth-adaptive unicast to work reliably.

multicast isn't inherently more data. yes, a mobile device like an iPhone would likely get a lower bandwidth stream, but it could still be multicast. and the more likely scenario of a roku or an xbox in the home would get the same bandwidth stream that the set tops get.

Quote:

I don't see QAM going away. Few companies have even got to MPEG-4, which is easy compared to going IP. IP would require all new STBs, and some sort of transition period after every box supported IP where channels are moved from QAM to IP.

Moving to MPEG-4 requires all new boxes, too. We're rapidly approaching the point that the old, antiquated networks need to be replaced. Why would they replace them with the same thing instead of the newest technology? And many, many cable companies including Comcast and TWC have publicly stated that IP distribution of video is the end goal. It's not a debate, it will happen. The only question is how long it's going to take. And, germane to us TiVo customers, how open the system will be.

Quote:

Well actually, given the same codec, IP running over DOCSIS 3 and SDV would use almost exactly the same amount of bandwidth. Both get 38mbps per channel. If you're claiming huge bandwidth savings of IPTV over QAM256, you're looking at not transmitting channels that aren't in use, which is exactly what SDV already does with QAM256. Now DOCSIS 3.1 could theoretically get quite a bit more capacity, as it's using OFDMA rather than QAM256, which is the same change that is happening going from HSPA+ to LTE on the mobile side... However, we're now really out in dream land. MPEG-4 AVC has been out for 11 years, and few cable companies are using it much, if at all, and that's an easy change from MPEG-2...

My claim of bandwidth savings had nothing to do with the modulation of the RF carrier on the wire. It had to do with the fact that you'd be effectively 100% "SDV" (although not using any of the current SDV infrastructure) as well as the fact that, since you'd have to replace all set tops and all encoders and all modulators, you would move to MPEG-4/h.264 or even HEVC/h.265. From a purely like for like situation where the same bitrate, same codecs, and same number of streams were sent you'd actually increase bandwidth ever so slightly since every packet would be encapsulated in an IP frame.

Quote:

They would likely have a gateway that received IPTV and then transmitted that via MoCA to the boxes. However, the whole IPTV thing makes no sense, as almost none of their existing equipment is IPTV capable.

The bitrates wouldn't choke an iPad per se, as it would likely be something like 6-8mbps MPEG-4, however, it wouldn't be practical for use on consumer devices, as the bandwidth isn't consistent enough, so unicast streams that are bandwidth-adaptive would still need to be used...

Except that the bandwidth would be consistent since it would be delivered over the private side of the IP network, not via your generic commodity internet connection. And, there's no reason that lower bitrate streams could not be sent to smaller devices. Consolidation of streams is only part of it. Consolidation of the backend infrastructure is a *major* part of it. They're already duplicating streams, so if even if they still duplicate streams to TVs and iPhones, at least if they're coming out of the same encoders and servers, they've still saved a ton of money and complexity in the network

MoCA. They're already using MoCA for WHDVR functions. AT&T uses HPNA to transmit their IP data to their STBs, DirecTV uses DECA for streaming from the HR34/HR44 to the C31s. AT&T will let you use Ethernet, but it's certainly not recommended or required.

They would likely have a gateway that received IPTV and then transmitted that via MoCA to the boxes. However, the whole IPTV thing makes no sense, as almost none of their existing equipment is IPTV capable.

The bitrates wouldn't choke an iPad per se, as it would likely be something like 6-8mbps MPEG-4, however, it wouldn't be practical for use on consumer devices, as the bandwidth isn't consistent enough, so unicast streams that are bandwidth-adaptive would still need to be used...

I can understand using MoCA. It just how does it get deployed. It seems strange to think they'll issue a MoCA set-top + gateway device. It seems cleaner in the WHDVR model where the modem is coupled with the STB. Maybe we'll see something more like a Roamio + Mini construct (or Genie or Hopper); with the main unit providing the gateway.

WRT MPEG4, I just haven't seen bit rates yet. With MPEG2 they're pushing out 40,000Kbps VBR; I expected something equally ludicrous when moving to MPEG4. If you look at the iPad spec sheet they're only listing support up to 2.5 Mbps.

I can understand using MoCA. It just how does it get deployed. It seems strange to think they'll issue a MoCA set-top + gateway device. It seems cleaner in the WHDVR model where the modem is coupled with the STB. Maybe we'll see something more like a Roamio + Mini construct (or Genie or Hopper); with the main unit providing the gateway.

WRT MPEG4, I just haven't seen bit rates yet. With MPEG2 they're pushing out 40,000Kbps VBR; I expected something equally ludicrous when moving to MPEG4. If you look at the iPad spec sheet they're only listing support up to 2.5 Mbps.

Uh, no cable system is pushing 40mbps on any channel at all. ATSC delivered digital video is only ~19mbps, and the channels you get from the cable company are compressed beyond that. When I was fooling around with my HDHomeRun, I didn't see very many above 10mbps, and those were ESPN and HBO.

Migration debacle? More like a non-event except for some secondary TVs that people didn't use much anyways. It was easy when Comcast switched over, we got two DTAs, later migrated one TV to a box with WHDVR access, and later returned both DTAs when they started charging $2.50/mo for the DTAs. Now, everything is just digital. No need to even think about analog.

Even though your household was not greatly affected didn't mean a significant number of persons were not affected.

There was a significant amount of consumer equipment that depended on Clear QAM which basic cable always had. Boxee's, Simple.TV's, SiliconDust, HDTV's with built in tuners. This isn't old stuff but were >$100 devices still being sold as brand new, that became paper weights overnight and unilaterally.

The DTA's that were given out for compensation were SD and Analog output. These are not a proper substitute except for 4:3 SD TV's, and nor even compatible with most these things.

Comcast promised to have the mitigation devices (I don't mean the SD DTA's here) ready before starting encryption but a) didn't actually give them out b) stopped promising to give them out when the FCC relaxed the rules after the encryption already started c) what they were offering did not actually interoperate because it added a new to the scene, DTCP-IP requirement.

Those may sound like uncommon devices but this is exactly what the integration ban was for, to encourage a market for CE consumer electronics. And the cable company did and got exactly what they wanted, customers who wanted HD on secondary TV's better start paying for a box.

Yeah most cable MPEG-2 is between 12-15Mbps. The ones that use H.264 go down to 8-10Mbps

Thanks for the clarification. I was simply going off the bitrate as displayed by GSpot on the MPEG2 header. After some simple division, yea, the files I was looking at are actually around 14. Anyway, the bit rate being what it is for H.264, still would seem too high for most mobile devices to handle.

Well there is a difference between broadcast and streaming services like Netflix or download services like iTunes. With broadcast they have to encode in real time, which means they use a much simpler set of features of the H.264 codec which means they have to use higher bitrates to maintain quality. Streaming and download services pre-encode the streams, which means they can use much more complex settings, multipass encoding, etc... which allows them to use lower bitrates. For example Netflix's "super HD" is only about 6Mbps. And VUDU's HDX is between 6-8Mbps. And those are both 1080p compared to either 1080i or 720p used for broadcast.

Well there is a difference between broadcast and streaming services like Netflix or download services like iTunes. With broadcast they have to encode in real time, which means they use a much simpler set of features of the H.264 codec which means they have to use higher bitrates to maintain quality. Streaming and download services pre-encode the streams, which means they can use much more complex settings, multipass encoding, etc... which allows them to use lower bitrates. For example Netflix's "super HD" is only about 6Mbps. And VUDU's HDX is between 6-8Mbps. And those are both 1080p compared to either 1080i or 720p used for broadcast.

How's netflix and others handling adaptive bitrates? Is it that much cheaper to down sample (Transrating?) from a high quality encode (at realtime) or do they have multiple pre-encoded copies they're toggling between?

How's netflix and others handling adaptive bitrates? Is it that much cheaper to down sample (Transrating?) from a high quality encode (at realtime) or do they have multiple pre-encoded copies they're toggling between?

They have multiple encodes available and switch between them. They are not encoding on the fly.

A set-top waiver being sought by a relatively small cable operator is
raising a sizable stink at the Federal Communications Commission. While
TiVo claims to be “supportive” of a waiver request from Buckeye CableSystem
so long as it’s paired with multiple conditions, the MSO’s pursuit is also
facing some outright opposition. Still, Buckeye’s pursuit does have the
backing of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.

multicast isn't inherently more data. yes, a mobile device like an iPhone would likely get a lower bandwidth stream, but it could still be multicast. and the more likely scenario of a roku or an xbox in the home would get the same bandwidth stream that the set tops get.

The problem is, if you have one multicast stream, if the wireless gets too slow, the stream just bombs out. If you're doing unicast, you're now bandwidth adaptive, which is how pretty much every stream out there today works...

Quote:

Moving to MPEG-4 requires all new boxes, too. We're rapidly approaching the point that the old, antiquated networks need to be replaced. Why would they replace them with the same thing instead of the newest technology? And many, many cable companies including Comcast and TWC have publicly stated that IP distribution of video is the end goal. It's not a debate, it will happen. The only question is how long it's going to take. And, germane to us TiVo customers, how open the system will be.

TiVo Premiere and newer supports MPEG-4. Windows MCE supports MPEG-4. DCX-3400 and newer supports MPEG-4. The X1 supports MPEG-4. There are some old tanks left out there that don't support MPEG-4, but they are way beyond when they should have been EOL'ed anyways. The equipment switchover isn't that significant.

How long? A long, long time. QAM will be here for decades to come.

Quote:

My claim of bandwidth savings had nothing to do with the modulation of the RF carrier on the wire. It had to do with the fact that you'd be effectively 100% "SDV" (although not using any of the current SDV infrastructure) as well as the fact that, since you'd have to replace all set tops and all encoders and all modulators, you would move to MPEG-4/h.264 or even HEVC/h.265. From a purely like for like situation where the same bitrate, same codecs, and same number of streams were sent you'd actually increase bandwidth ever so slightly since every packet would be encapsulated in an IP frame.

So you get almost identical savings to what you would moving to SDV over QAM with MPEG-4, which a large majority of cable boxes today already support in full. You'd save a little with IP, as DOCSIS can channel bond and allocate bandwidth dynamically over 24 QAMs, as opposed to getting fixed size streams, but that or the IP encapsulation are both pretty minuscule in the whole scheme of things.

Quote:

Except that the bandwidth would be consistent since it would be delivered over the private side of the IP network, not via your generic commodity internet connection. And, there's no reason that lower bitrate streams could not be sent to smaller devices. Consolidation of streams is only part of it. Consolidation of the backend infrastructure is a *major* part of it. They're already duplicating streams, so if even if they still duplicate streams to TVs and iPhones, at least if they're coming out of the same encoders and servers, they've still saved a ton of money and complexity in the network

There's really no consolidation. The point about consistent bandwidth is that Joe Average's crappy wifi network may not be up to the task, and no matter how good the bandwidth that is delivered by Comcast, whether it's through the internet connection or through private IP, his wifi might screw it all up, so you are back to needing two separate systems.

Also, look at the equipment cost. Everything except the newest DVR/ whole home platforms would have to be entirely replaced. Every DTA, every HD box, most DVRs. It's completely insane. If they go MPEG-4 AVC for HDs, maybe even SDV on 860mhz systems, they can continue to use most of their existing equipment, and the few ancient HD boxes that are left that can't do MPEG-4 can be downcycled to support SD equipment if they even want to keep supporting a bunch of oddball equipment. SD channels, at least for expanded basic, would still be in MPEG-2 to support DTAs and SD boxes. Then the few 4K channels that will come in will use HEVC, and likely require most of a QAM per channel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwbelcher

I can understand using MoCA. It just how does it get deployed. It seems strange to think they'll issue a MoCA set-top + gateway device. It seems cleaner in the WHDVR model where the modem is coupled with the STB. Maybe we'll see something more like a Roamio + Mini construct (or Genie or Hopper); with the main unit providing the gateway.

WRT MPEG4, I just haven't seen bit rates yet. With MPEG2 they're pushing out 40,000Kbps VBR; I expected something equally ludicrous when moving to MPEG4. If you look at the iPad spec sheet they're only listing support up to 2.5 Mbps.

Not 40mbps. 11-19mbps for HD.

Yes, they would use a gateway model. They already are for the WHDVR they already offer, plus the X1 system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JosephB

Uh, no cable system is pushing 40mbps on any channel at all. ATSC delivered digital video is only ~19mbps, and the channels you get from the cable company are compressed beyond that. When I was fooling around with my HDHomeRun, I didn't see very many above 10mbps, and those were ESPN and HBO.

Correct. And most ATSC channels are really delivering way less than that, as the subchannels are robbing the main feed of a ton of bandwidth. And for cable channels, Comcast tri-muxes most channels, getting about 12mbps per channel. A few like ESPN and HBO are not tri-muxed. FIOS does not tri-mux, so many of their channels are upwards of 19mbps.

Quote:

Originally Posted by telemark

Even though your household was not greatly affected didn't mean a significant number of persons were not affected.

There was a significant amount of consumer equipment that depended on Clear QAM which basic cable always had. Boxee's, Simple.TV's, SiliconDust, HDTV's with built in tuners. This isn't old stuff but were >$100 devices still being sold as brand new, that became paper weights overnight and unilaterally.

The all-digital switch and moving broadcast channels from ClearQAM to encrypted QAM are two different things. They happened at different times on my system. Boxee had a solution with Comcast, but I think they disappeared before that materialized. SiliconDust is a CableCard-based product, so no issues there, and Simple.TV is an OTA product, so again, no effect. The effects were with old analog TV sets in the kitchen, basement, etc, etc, that didn't have boxes and now have to have DTAs. It was a pretty painless transition.

Quote:

The DTA's that were given out for compensation were SD and Analog output. These are not a proper substitute except for 4:3 SD TV's, and nor even compatible with most these things.

I used one with a little-used 19" HDTV for a while so I could have the news on while I was doing some hobby work. It worked fine. All TVs have NTSC tuners. The DTAs were made to replace analog channels with a TV's built-in analog tuner. 4:3 analog replacing 4:3 analog. The only big loss was HD locals on those TVs, but that was never really officially supported in the first place, and who cares if you're using it on a tertiary TV anyways?

Quote:

Comcast promised to have the mitigation devices (I don't mean the SD DTA's here) ready before starting encryption but a) didn't actually give them out b) stopped promising to give them out when the FCC relaxed the rules after the encryption already started c) what they were offering did not actually interoperate because it added a new to the scene, DTCP-IP requirement.

HUH? They had DTAs that replaced 4:3 analog with 4:3 analog.

Quote:

Those may sound like uncommon devices but this is exactly what the integration ban was for, to encourage a market for CE consumer electronics. And the cable company did and got exactly what they wanted, customers who wanted HD on secondary TV's better start paying for a box.

This argument makes no sense. The integration ban was based on CableCard. CableCard today is basically only supported by Windows MCE and TiVo, and both devices benefitted significantly by eliminating the analog channels, by getting double or triple the number of HD channels that they previously got.

If they wanted HD on a secondary set, they could use OTA and get the same channels that they could through Clear QAM. Clear QAM was locals only. In order to get cable channels in HD, they needed a box from day 1 and still needed a box after the transition...

Quote:

Originally Posted by slowbiscuit

U-Verse HD caps out around 6Mbps and they're using h.264. Most people think they have inferior PQ compared to the other h.264 implementations.

It's gotten better, but it's still not great. Definitely not as good as DirecTV's H.264...

Quote:

Originally Posted by sbiller

A set-top waiver being sought by a relatively small cable operator is
raising a sizable stink at the Federal Communications Commission. While
TiVo claims to be “supportive” of a waiver request from Buckeye CableSystem
so long as it’s paired with multiple conditions, the MSO’s pursuit is also
facing some outright opposition. Still, Buckeye’s pursuit does have the
backing of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.

It's interesting that they want SDV gone. If the cable provider wanted to, they could implement SDV for TiVo in software, like Comcast did for VOD.

TiVo knows that SDV is another area of friction that hurts retail adoption and another reason that Comcast is one of the most "TiVo-Friendly" companies with no SDV, no lockdown of channels via copy flags, and support for premium and standard VOD.

The problem is, if you have one multicast stream, if the wireless gets too slow, the stream just bombs out. If you're doing unicast, you're now bandwidth adaptive, which is how pretty much every stream out there today works...

TiVo Premiere and newer supports MPEG-4. Windows MCE supports MPEG-4. DCX-3400 and newer supports MPEG-4. The X1 supports MPEG-4. There are some old tanks left out there that don't support MPEG-4, but they are way beyond when they should have been EOL'ed anyways. The equipment switchover isn't that significant.

How long? A long, long time. QAM will be here for decades to come.

So you get almost identical savings to what you would moving to SDV over QAM with MPEG-4, which a large majority of cable boxes today already support in full. You'd save a little with IP, as DOCSIS can channel bond and allocate bandwidth dynamically over 24 QAMs, as opposed to getting fixed size streams, but that or the IP encapsulation are both pretty minuscule in the whole scheme of things.

There's really no consolidation. The point about consistent bandwidth is that Joe Average's crappy wifi network may not be up to the task, and no matter how good the bandwidth that is delivered by Comcast, whether it's through the internet connection or through private IP, his wifi might screw it all up, so you are back to needing two separate systems.

Also, look at the equipment cost. Everything except the newest DVR/ whole home platforms would have to be entirely replaced. Every DTA, every HD box, most DVRs. It's completely insane. If they go MPEG-4 AVC for HDs, maybe even SDV on 860mhz systems, they can continue to use most of their existing equipment, and the few ancient HD boxes that are left that can't do MPEG-4 can be downcycled to support SD equipment if they even want to keep supporting a bunch of oddball equipment. SD channels, at least for expanded basic, would still be in MPEG-2 to support DTAs and SD boxes. Then the few 4K channels that will come in will use HEVC, and likely require most of a QAM per channel.

Not 40mbps. 11-19mbps for HD.

Yes, they would use a gateway model. They already are for the WHDVR they already offer, plus the X1 system.

Correct. And most ATSC channels are really delivering way less than that, as the subchannels are robbing the main feed of a ton of bandwidth. And for cable channels, Comcast tri-muxes most channels, getting about 12mbps per channel. A few like ESPN and HBO are not tri-muxed. FIOS does not tri-mux, so many of their channels are upwards of 19mbps.

The all-digital switch and moving broadcast channels from ClearQAM to encrypted QAM are two different things. They happened at different times on my system. Boxee had a solution with Comcast, but I think they disappeared before that materialized. SiliconDust is a CableCard-based product, so no issues there, and Simple.TV is an OTA product, so again, no effect. The effects were with old analog TV sets in the kitchen, basement, etc, etc, that didn't have boxes and now have to have DTAs. It was a pretty painless transition.

I used one with a little-used 19" HDTV for a while so I could have the news on while I was doing some hobby work. It worked fine. All TVs have NTSC tuners. The DTAs were made to replace analog channels with a TV's built-in analog tuner. 4:3 analog replacing 4:3 analog. The only big loss was HD locals on those TVs, but that was never really officially supported in the first place, and who cares if you're using it on a tertiary TV anyways?

HUH? They had DTAs that replaced 4:3 analog with 4:3 analog.

This argument makes no sense. The integration ban was based on CableCard. CableCard today is basically only supported by Windows MCE and TiVo, and both devices benefitted significantly by eliminating the analog channels, by getting double or triple the number of HD channels that they previously got.

If they wanted HD on a secondary set, they could use OTA and get the same channels that they could through Clear QAM. Clear QAM was locals only. In order to get cable channels in HD, they needed a box from day 1 and still needed a box after the transition...

It's gotten better, but it's still not great. Definitely not as good as DirecTV's H.264...

It's interesting that they want SDV gone. If the cable provider wanted to, they could implement SDV for TiVo in software, like Comcast did for VOD.

Also, they want to go 85% IPTV AND support CableCard? HUH?

Multiple cable companies as well as the NCTA have been quoted regarding their eventual switch to IP distribution of their video. QAM modulated packets of MPEG-2/4 will be around for a while longer, maybe up to 10 years, but not much longer than that. By that time, whatever is left of traditional linear video channels will be IP distributed.

I recently came across a Comcast cable box for sale in a thrift store. (I know. Not supposed to see that.)

Anyway, I could clearly see a CableCard thru the air vents. I checked later at home on the model number and indeed it does use a standard M-card for authorization. Other cable companies also used this box.

So cable companies themselves saw the advantage of CableCards and used them. But that is the past.

I have also seen quite a few Brighthouse boxes with cable cards in them, even took the security metal piece off and removed the card, standard M card just like the tivo, nothing special. Makes me sick that their own equipment works just fine but you cripple us Tivo customers. Wish I had the ability to but directly from the networks for the individual channels I want verses buying a package full of crap I dont want.

I have also seen quite a few Brighthouse boxes with cable cards in them, even took the security metal piece off and removed the card, standard M card just like the tivo, nothing special. Makes me sick that their own equipment works just fine but you cripple us Tivo customers. Wish I had the ability to but directly from the networks for the individual channels I want verses buying a package full of crap I dont want.

Actually, cable boxes from the cable company have cablecards because they're required to by law. Part of the laws and regulations requiring cable companies to offer cablecards for TiVo is a requirement that cable companies must also use the same technology. The thought was that this would put cable company equipment on a level playing field with retail equipment like TiVos.

Unfortunately, cable companies simply pre-activate and pre-pair the cards to the boxes before you get them, more or less defeating the entire purpose.

Actually, cable boxes from the cable company have cablecards because they're required to by law. Part of the laws and regulations requiring cable companies to offer cablecards for TiVo is a requirement that cable companies must also use the same technology. The thought was that this would put cable company equipment on a level playing field with retail equipment like TiVos.

Unfortunately, cable companies simply pre-activate and pre-pair the cards to the boxes before you get them, more or less defeating the entire purpose.

While I agree that the common reliance principle may not be perfect, it could be and was much worse before the integration ban was mandated by the FCC.

As TiVo puts it,

Quote:

Until common reliance became the rule and cable operators began relying on CableCARDs themselves, the technology defied Moore’s Law – it remained generationally frozen and needlessly expensive, while similar technologies became cheaper, faster, and more reliable. Only common reliance has brought the cost down and brought a moderate level of support for retail devices. An end to common reliance would freeze this progress on cableCARDs, allow cable operators to exclude CableCARDs from future product plans, and eliminate any incentive for the industry to help develop a successor solution for retail devices.

And,

Quote:

The first CableCARD-reliant products – televisions with CableCARD slots – came to market in 2003 – 2004 but in the absence of common reliance received poor or nonexistent support from cable operators as documented in FCC and court decisions. That lack of support finally led the FCC to implement common reliance on the same security technology (also known as the “integration ban”) as of July 1, 2007. By this time, CableCARD televisions were disappearing from the market due to lack of cable operator support. But the emergence of High Definition Television and the impending digital transition encouraged TiVo and others to begin selling HD CableCARD DVRs.

I see so much "reading between the lines", "spirit of the law versus the letter of the law", and "This will be the future, because I say so", along with so much bickering, I'm to the point of just skimming past most of it...

I think this speaks volumes for the FCC wording things in ways that even MSOs don't know what it means.

For example: Right after the integration ban, Cox ONLY deploying non-integrated STBs, plus replacing integrated ones, now switching to only re-issuing refurbished integrated ones, and scrapping the non-integrated ones, cablecards and all.

I think Cox thought they had to do the former, then their legal department realized they didn't have to. So, now they do the latter.

In my post about this, I referenced how if I wanted HDMI, I could only get it on the STBs with cablecards. I wasn't saying that cablecard had any link to HDMI, only that Cox didn't have HDMI-out on their HD STBs until the cablecard models were rolling. Now, they seem to want to wash their hands of cablecard STBs, to the point of taking away HDMI-supporting STBs...

There's another thread that is titled with a TiVo subject I'm interested in, and it has been hijacked by gun-control arguments. Maybe I should embrace guns for all, and lots of them, so some people can start slinging lead at each other... Problem solved (as long as some of us duck and cover in time)...

IPTV is a possibility, in the future. So were a whole boatload of standards that have already died-out, some never even deployed.

How far in the future will people argue over what is going to be what, while pushing-out the conversation that has to do with keeping our TiVos working for long enough to get our money's-worth out of?

TiVo has only been around for just over 10 years, cablecard for less than that.

If everybody in the firefight to be right about everything, used the same effort to do something to support TiVo in their fight to not become obsolete faster, I'd feel a lot more secure about things.

It just seems like some have lost-sight of the things going on right now, that undermine the future, for TiVo. Some of us just recently bought one.

I like the idea of some universal gateway, so long as we can hitch our TiVos to said gateway.

Last I checked, the latest argument is about how multicast will degrade legacy wireless networks... No freaking comment...

A set-top waiver being sought by a relatively small cable operator is
raising a sizable stink at the Federal Communications Commission. While
TiVo claims to be “supportive” of a waiver request from Buckeye CableSystem
so long as it’s paired with multiple conditions, the MSO’s pursuit is also
facing some outright opposition. Still, Buckeye’s pursuit does have the
backing of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.

Buckeye distributes programming under limited licenses from programmers, many of which place heavy restrictions on the types of devices to which Buckeye can deliver programming. Buckeye’s support for third-party devices will be limited by these constraints.

For me that says it all.

TiVo seems to argue that the waiver should be denied unless the functionality is limited to that of an exempt DTA. Here, TiVo’s position would deprive customers of the benefits of an IP video output. ...... As third-party devices and services become available to offer Buckeye customers more options on how they view programming from the IP portion of the Hybrid Box, those customers should be able to access those options.

B.s they're talking from both sides their mouths. The before mentioned programming agreements appear to be more damaging to Buckeye providing third-party access than TiVo's conditions. Its clear without the FCC rules content will only live within the operators ecosystem.

Multiple cable companies as well as the NCTA have been quoted regarding their eventual switch to IP distribution of their video. QAM modulated packets of MPEG-2/4 will be around for a while longer, maybe up to 10 years, but not much longer than that. By that time, whatever is left of traditional linear video channels will be IP distributed.

It's wishful thinking at this point. Considering they can't even manage the basic upgrades like all-860mhz plants and MPEG-4 HD, I don't forsee IP for a long, long time. Linear TV also isn't going anywhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nooneuknow

For example: Right after the integration ban, Cox ONLY deploying non-integrated STBs, plus replacing integrated ones, now switching to only re-issuing refurbished integrated ones, and scrapping the non-integrated ones, cablecards and all.

I think Cox thought they had to do the former, then their legal department realized they didn't have to. So, now they do the latter.

Wow, you're pretty far down the conspiracy theory crazy slope. They deploy whatever they have laying around. They may have gotten a big shipment right after the ban, and have since gotten plenty of boxes back, so they just keep re-issuing whatever they have. They may also take newer boxes to certain markets or give them to triple play customers, etc. They're not on some vendetta against CableCard, they are just using whatever old crappy pieces of junk they have sitting around.

Quote:

In my post about this, I referenced how if I wanted HDMI, I could only get it on the STBs with cablecards. I wasn't saying that cablecard had any link to HDMI, only that Cox didn't have HDMI-out on their HD STBs until the cablecard models were rolling. Now, they seem to want to wash their hands of cablecard STBs, to the point of taking away HDMI-supporting STBs...

It's whatever they have in your area.

Quote:

There's another thread that is titled with a TiVo subject I'm interested in, and it has been hijacked by gun-control arguments. Maybe I should embrace guns for all, and lots of them, so some people can start slinging lead at each other... Problem solved (as long as some of us duck and cover in time)...

Probably the reason it went off-topic and hasn't returned is because the premise of the thread made no sense. TiVo and Chromecast have nothing to do with each other.

Quote:

IPTV is a possibility, in the future. So were a whole boatload of standards that have already died-out, some never even deployed.

How far in the future will people argue over what is going to be what, while pushing-out the conversation that has to do with keeping our TiVos working for long enough to get our money's-worth out of?

TiVo has only been around for just over 10 years, cablecard for less than that.

If everybody in the firefight to be right about everything, used the same effort to do something to support TiVo in their fight to not become obsolete faster, I'd feel a lot more secure about things.

It just seems like some have lost-sight of the things going on right now, that undermine the future, for TiVo. Some of us just recently bought one.

I like the idea of some universal gateway, so long as we can hitch our TiVos to said gateway.

IPTV is already in use. Just not for linear channels on an HFC system. A universal gateway is a good idea for all providers. But CableCard is going to be around for years and probably decades to come.

Quote:

Last I checked, the latest argument is about how multicast will degrade legacy wireless networks... No freaking comment...